Some Problems in the Interpretation of the
Mythological Portion of the Hieroglyphic Text of
the Temple of the Cross at Palenque
FLOYD G. LOUNSBURY
The problems to which reference is made in the
above title are in the second, third, fourth, and fifth
passages of the glyphic text from the Temple of the
Cross. These will occupy sections II to V. A review
of the first passage of the text precedes, in section I,
to provide the setting for those which follow.
I. The Initial Passage (A1–C1)
The values of the head-variant numerals of
the Initial Series were established during the last
decade of the nineteenth century. J. T. Goodman
had them essentially correct in "The Archaic Maya
Inscriptions," published as an appendix (vol. VI)
to Maudslay's Archaeology in 1897. If we ignore
Goodman's interpretation of the introducing glyph
(A1–B2), and revise his notational device for what
amounts to a "zero" in the lowest order of digits, his
interpretation of the Initial Series was that which
all accept today and which is now well proven:
12.19.13.4.0 8 Ahau 18 Tzec (A3–B9). This specifies a date toward the end of the last preceding
chronological era, antedating the close of that era
and the beginning of the new (on the epoch day 4
Ahau 8 Cumhu 13.0.0.0.0) by an interval of 6.14.0
or 2440 days. If we accept any of the GoodmanMartinez-Thompson family of correlation constants, this would be a date in the year 3120 B.C. It
is necessarily a mythological date, or a retrospective projection of some thirty-eight centuries into
the past as compared with the probable dedication
date of the temple (9.13.0.0.0 or A.D. 692).
Goodman's interpretation of the initial date was
at first accepted (1900) but then rejected (1904)
by Cyrus Thomas of the Smithsonian Institution's
Bureau of American Ethnology, whose work is of
interest to look back to now. His ideas about this
date will be discussed in connection with the problem of section II.
Immediately following the expression of the
Long Count and the Calendar Round components of
the date is the supplementary series: glyphs G8 and
F (conflated at A10), specifying dominion of the
eighth lord of the night; glyph D (at B10), specifying five nights since the "birth" (A11) of the current
moon; glyph C (at B11), specifying two more full
months elapsed in the current lunar half year; glyph
X (at A12) and glyph B (at B12), of unknown significance; and glyph A (at A13), specifying twentynine days as the duration of the preceding month in
the lunar calendar.
Following this is another "supplementary" series
(B13–B16), specifying that the date of the Initial
Series is 20 days after the last previous station in
the 819-day cycle, which was a station to the south
(A15) and was on 1 Ahau 18 Zotz (A16–B16).
Then, with all significant aspects of the date
made known, there is the declaration of the event
that occurred on that date: the birth (A17) of the
ancient female (B17) whose name glyph follows
(at C1). Some other aspects of this date and its significance to the Palenque Maya have been treated
previously (Lounsbury 1976).
II.
The Number 8.5.0 (D1–C5)
All students of this inscription have found a
2005(1980) Some Problems in the Interpretation of the Mythological Portion of the Hieroglyphic Text of the Temple
of the Cross at Palenque. Originally published in 1980 in Third Palenque Round Table, 1978, Part 2, edited by
Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 99-115. Austin: University of Texas Press. Electronic version: www.mesoweb.com/
pari/publications/RT05/Problems.pdf.
1
problem inhering in the Distance Number with
which the second passage of the text begins: 0 days,
5 uinals, and 8 tuns (D1–C2), or 8.5.0 in ordinary
notation. The trouble is that it does not mediate
properly between any two of the dates recorded in
this and adjacent passages. Each decipherer consequently has attempted to resolve the problem by
positing errors and proposing corrections either in
the number or in its context. Thus J. T. Goodman
(1897), after transcribing the Initial Series which
terminates on 8 Ahau 18 Tzec, and noting the reckoning back twenty days to 1 Ahau 18 Zotz, proceeded to this passage as follows:
. . . there is a reckoning of 8.5.0 . . . to 4 Ahau 8
Cumhu . . . This reckoning is a mistake. It should be
either 6.14.0, the distance from 8 Ahau 18 Tzec to 4
Ahau 8 Cumhu, or 6.15.0, the distance from 1 Ahau 18
Zotz — more likely the latter. (Goodman 1897: 135, with
notation revised to current usage)
And a bit further he remarked:
It will be evident pretty soon that the sculptors got
their copy mixed up. (ibid.)
Cyrus Thomas, in the nineteenth annual report
of the Bureau of American Ethnology (1900), tentatively accepted Goodman's interpretation of the values of the head-variant numerals in the Initial Series
and of the date that results from these (12.19.13.4.0).
But he was uneasy about the adequacy of the evidence upon which these hypothetic values rested;
and so he attempted to find additional evidence and
a stronger argument to support Goodman's conclusion. He approached it as follows:
But here the question arises, what evidence have
we that the numbers assigned to these face glyphs are
correct? . . . If 8 Ahau 18 Tzec could be connected by
intervening numbers with a following date, this would
be a demonstration that the numbers given to the date
symbols are correct. (Thomas 1900: 736)
At this point he appealed to the number in this
passage and to a date in the next. He didn't quite
succeed in his demonstration, but he came so close
to it that he felt justified in positing a small error in
the text:
By simply adding two days to the first numerical
series, connection will be made with the date of the third
series. (ibid.: 737)
Thus he proposed to change the 8.5.0 of the text
to 8.5.2 and to add it to Goodman's Initial Series
date so as to arrive at the 13 Ik end-of-Mol date, at
1.9.2 after 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, which is recorded in
the next passage:
12.19.13. 4. 0
8. 5. 2
13. 0. 1. 9. 2
8 Ahau 18 Tzec (IS., A3–B9)
(emendation, in place of 8.5.0,
Dl–C2)
13 Ik 0 Chen "end-of-Mol" (C9–
D9)
Not long after having made this proposal,
Thomas had another idea, which he published in the
twenty-second annual report of the bureau (1904);
and now he rejected Goodman's readings of two of
the faces in the Initial Series:
Goodman's interpretation of the initial inscription of
the Tablet of the Cross, which is . . . 12.19.13.4.0, 8 Ahau
18 Tzec, is not satisfactory. (Thomas 1904: 220)
whereupon he offered another alternative, which he
favored over his first proposal:
Change the terminal date of the initial series from
8 Ahau 18 Tzec to 1 Ahau 8 Muan, and the following
numeral series [8.5.0] will then connect the succeeding
dates with it ... This, however, will slightly change the
initial series from the numbers given by Goodman. (ibid.:
221)
It will indeed. We now have:
12.19. 11. 13. 0
8. 5. 0
13. 0. 0. 0. 0
1. 9. 2
13. 0. 1. 9. 2
1 Ahau 8 Muan (emendation of
I.S.)
(D1–C2)
4 Ahau 8 Cumhu (D3-C5)
(D5–C6a)
13 Ik 0 Chen = "end-of-Mol"
(C9–D9)
Eric Thompson, in his article on the dates of the
Temple of the Cross (1936), and again in his Maya
Hieroglyphic Writing (1950), and yet again in his
Commentary on the Dresden Codex (1972), opted
for Cyrus Thomas' first proposal. Thus:
Glyphs D1–C2 record 8.5.0, but to link the Initial
Series with 13 Ik Mol-concluded, this must be amended
to read 8.5.2. (Thompson 1936: 287, n. 1; cf. also 1950:
fig. 53.1 annotations; also 1972: 21)
Heinrich Berlin, in his study of the inscription
of this tablet, let the matter rest with Thompson:
From Dl to C2 follows a DN of 8.5.0. Thompson
. . . corrects this DN to 8.5.2, which would connect
2
12.19.13.4.0 with (13.0)1.9.2, 13 IK End-of-Mol given
below. (Berlin 1965: 330)
In summary, all have perceived a problem here,
and three different manners of coping with it — all
involving emendations of the text — have been
proposed:
1. Change the Distance Number from 8.5.0 to
either 6.14.0 or 6.15.0, and let it lead respectively
from the Initial Series date or from the second date
(which we now know to be the 819-day station) to 4
Ahau 8 Cumhu. This was Goodman's solution.
2. Change the Distance Number from 8.5.0 to
8.5.2, and let it lead from the Initial Series date to
13 Ik end-of-Mol at 1.9.2. This was Thomas' first
solution and Thompson's.
3. Change the Initial Series from 12.19.13.4.0
8 Ahau 18 Tzec to 12.19.11.13.0 1 Ahau 8 Muan,
and let the Distance Number as recorded lead from
that to 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu. This was Thomas' second
solution.
The first and the third of these involve rather
drastic emendations and for that reason recommend themselves at best dubiously. The second,
because of the relatively small magnitude of its
prescribed emendation, has been regarded as more
acceptable; but there is a reason why it cannot be
accepted, unless we are to posit yet another error
in the text. The glyph at C3 carries as a prefix the
sign T679a, which is a reliable indicator that the
glyph to which it is attached signals the posterior
date or names the posterior event to which a preceding Distance Number is to lead. Thus the text
requires that the Distance Number 8.5.0 lead to the
"4 Ahau 8 Cumhu — completion of 13 baktuns" that
is stated in the following four glyphs (D3–C5) and
not to 13 Ik end-of-Mol, as would be required by
the second of these hypotheses (Thomas' first and
Thompson's).
This impasse leads us to ask whether there may
not be some other resolution of the problem. We
may put the question this way: is there some fact
which, if only we were aware of it and took it into
account, would cause this problem to vanish? The
answer, happily, is yes. It can be found from an
examination of the structure of the prevailing type
of textual units in the hieroglyphic inscriptionsunits which we might as well call sentences, though
their variety is limited.
One may first distinguish between those that
make chronological statements and those that do
not. We are concerned here only with the former,
which are the vast majority. Among these, a second
distinction can be made, between those that predicate only a single event, chronologically anchored,
and those that make reference to two events,
chronologically related to each other by means of
a Distance Number expressing the interval between
their respective dates, at least one of which can be
anchored by reference to its surrounding context
or by an anchor contained within it. In the inscriptions at Palenque — especially in the earlier ones
— the two-event variety is by far the more frequent.
The general formula for such statements can be
expressed as follows:
Distance Number—Prior Event—Posterior Event
in which an event expression may in turn contain
a verb, its subject, and the date of the event (given
usually in the Calendar Round). Thus there are the
following possible smaller constituents in such a
statement:
DN – Verb1 – Subject1 – Date1 – Verb2 – Subject2
– Date2
It should be understood that this represents the
overall pattern — the maximal form — of such twoevent chronological statements. Occurring sentences
exhibit abbreviations of this scheme in which one or
another item (predictable and therefore redundant)
is omitted and in which certain inversions of order
are also allowable. For example, one of the subject
slots may be unfilled for any of a variety of reasons,
such as (1) both verbs may have the same subject, in
which case it may appear either in the first or in the
second subject position, but rarely in both; (2) one of
the subjects may be the same as the last-mentioned
one in the preceding sentence, so that it is obvious
from context and need not be repeated; or (3) one of
the verbs may be an impersonal verb, such as that
expressing a katun-ending, or the "completion" of
so-and-so many periods of some particular order.
Similarly, one or the other date slot in the scheme
may also be unfilled. This kind of abbreviation is
particularly frequent. It entails, however, no loss
of information. Given the Distance Number and
either of the two dates between which it mediates,
the other is recoverable. It is almost as though the
scribes had edited out redundant information.
The point of this digression may now be stated:
3
Fig. 1. Tablet of the Cross. Drawing by Linda Schele.
4
the passage which we have been considering contains no inconsistency at all. There is no problem
that calls for emendation of the text. We have here
merely one example out of many in the inscriptions
of Palenque, particularly in the earlier ones, where
one out of a pair of dates connected by a Distance
Number is left unexpressed. We are led then to Cyrus
Thomas' second hypothesis (1904) as containing the
necessary and proper interpretation of this passage,
except that this does not entail any change in the
Initial Series date as he supposed that it would. His
mistake was only in the assumption that the prior
date of the pair in this passage had to be identified
with one of those previously mentioned in the text.
It does not. Rather, we have here to do with three
different dates: the initial date on 8 Ahau 18 Tzec at
12.19.13.4.0; the preceding 819-day station, twenty
days earlier, on 1 Ahau 18 Zotz 12.19.13.3.0; and
the prior date of the next passage, the implied but
unrecorded 1 Ahau 8 Muan 12.19.11.13.0, all of
these before the beginning of the current chronological era. It makes no difference that there is no
explicit recording of 1 Ahau 8 Muan in the text.
Precedent for this kind of suppression of redundant
information is abundant in the Palenque texts.
It is surprising that Eric Thompson didn't take
up this solution, for he came very close to anticipating it. He was aware of the Palenque habit of
suppressing redundant chronological specifications,
and in 1936 he wrote:
Furthermore, in this inscription [of the Temple of the
Cross], as in others at Palenque, a sort of shorthand system is employed, dates being given without any position
in the Long Count, and Secondary Series [i.e., Distance
Numbers] which lead to suppressed dates. (Thompson
1936: 287; bracketed notes and emphasis added)
What Thompson overlooked in this statement is
that there are also Distance Numbers that lead from
suppressed dates to recorded ones. Cyrus Thomas'
1 Ahau 8 Muan, at minus 8.5.0, or 12.19.11.13.0,
is just such a "suppressed date" — in fact, only one
of many in this inscription. It can never have been
intended to be equated with the date recorded in the
Initial Series.
All three previous hypotheses about this passage
have posited errors in the text and have required
amending it in one or more ways so as to fit whichever one of them is entertained. The one offered
here accepts the text as it is, positing no errors and
prescribing no corrections. Should so easy a way
out of the dilemma seem suspect, perhaps judgment
can be reserved till the rest of the evidence is in.
Neither Cyrus Thomas in 1900 and 1904 nor
Eric Thompson in 1936 and 1950 could have known
what is common knowledge now, since Tatiana
Proskouriakoff's discoveries (1960, 1963–64) about
the nature of the events proclaimed by the glyphs at
D2 in the present passage and at B17 in the initial
passage. These are births — imaginary ones, of
course, pertaining to mythic times. The one of the
initial passage has already been noted as the birth
of the ancient lady who is named at B17–C1. The
one in the present passage has now to be taken as a
different birth. But one thing is missing. There is no
identifiable name glyph in the passage nor even any
room for one. Which leads to the next problem.
III.
Whose Birth? (D5–C8)
What we have so far from the passage under
consideration above can be interpreted and paraphrased as follows:
It was 0 days and 5 uinals (D1) and 8 tuns (C2)
from the birth (D2) [on 1 Ahau 8 Muan 12.19.11.13.0
(implied)] to ..?.. (C3) on 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu (D3–C4) at
the completion (D4) of 13 baktuns [13.0.0.0.0] (C5).
There are two problems in this. One is the lack
of any indication of whose birth is recorded here.
The other is the glyph at C3, which is represented
in the above paraphrase only by the question mark.
These will be dealt with in order. First the question
of "who?"
If a name were found in this passage to accompany the "birth" glyph, and if it were a different
name from that (at B17–C1) which follows the
"birth" glyph of the initial passage, then we could be
reassured that the proposed way out of the impasse
of the "8.5.0" passage (D1–C5) is correct. But that
confirmation is lacking; and under the circumstances
it might be argued that the birth sign of the second
passage (at D2) should then have the same referent
as the one of the initial passage (at A17), which
only re-creates the problem we had hoped to escape
and presses us toward either Goodman's solution
(change the Distance Number) or Thomas' 1904
solution with all that he took it to entail (change the
Long Count number and the Calendar Round day of
5
the Initial Series).
But before yielding to that pressure we should
ask again whether there may not be some fact which
has escaped consideration so far, which, if taken
into account, would cause this problem too to vanish. Again it turns out that the answer is yes.
This time the pertinent fact is one of Maya
syntax, having to do with the order of nouns in relation to the words or phrases containing pronouns or
pronominal inflections of which the nouns are the
grammatical antecedents. Actually, Maya syntax is
very flexible in this respect, allowing for several
alternative orders, depending in part on the context
and in part on what is to be emphasized or "topicalized" in the given sentence; but the order, which
may be called basic, or neutral, or "unmarked," is
one in which the noun is placed last. This is manifest in several kinds of constructions, such as in
phrases with possessed and possessor nouns or in
clauses with predicate and subject (which in Maya
have several points of affinity with noun phrases
which they do not have in English or in Spanish).
Thus, for example: Yucatec u yotoch Hwàn or Chol
i yotot Wan, literally "his house, John" (rather than
"John's house" or "la casa de Juan" or the older and
still regionally colloquial "su casa de Juan"); similarly, Chol i bvk'tal ch'uhlelvl, literally "su cuerpo,
el finado." So also in simple sentences: Yucatec h
lúbi le tùnicho', "It fell, that stone"; ch'ùl le luuma',
"It is soaked, this ground"; Chol chvktihan i hol hini
ch'iton, "Ese niño tiene el cabello rubio" or, literally,
"Rubia su cabeza ese muchacho."
We come now to the pertinent fact (for the problem in the glyphic passage) when we observe that
the same word order that is valid for simple phrases
and clauses, such as illustrated above, is valid and
normal also for complex phrases and clauses — that
is, for phrases having two or more possessed nouns
with a common possessor and for clauses with compound predicates — especially when the conjoined
parts are genuinely coordinate or simply sequential,
rather than one dominant and the other subsidiary.
Thus, Yucatec u yatan yétel u pàlil Hwàn or Chol
yihñam yik'ot yalobil Wan, "John's wife and his
child," literally, "his wife and his child, John"; Chol
tsii bahbe chowal i tsii pvk'v yixim, htat, "Hizo su
roza y sembró su maíz mi padre."
In this potentiality of Maya grammar we may
find license now to look somewhat further afield for
a subject to go with the seemingly unaccompanied
predicate, the anonymous "birth" glyph (D2) of the
passage that has given trouble. There is the possibility that this may not be a complete sentence in
its own right but may be only one of two conjoined
predicates sharing a common subject, in which case
the subject might be found only after the second of
the predicates. Proceeding then to the next predicate, we find that it begins — as do virtually all of
them in this inscription — with a temporal phrase
(D5–C7), this followed by an event glyph (D7), and
then the name of the protagonist (C8–D8). Each of
these calls for comment.
The temporal phrase consists of a Distance
Number, 1.9.2 (D5–C6a), and a reference to the
prior date from which it is counted. This latter
(C6b–C7) is a glyphic phrase which occurs only in
contexts which require that its reference be to the
epoch day 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu (cf. Thompson 1962:
96). Another example at Palenque, in only slightly
variant form, is in the inscription of the Temple
of the Sun, at D16–N1–N2, where it stands as a
descriptive modifier of "4 Ahau 8 Cumhu."
The event glyph (D7) is of unknown meaning.
Since, however, its main sign and subfix constitute
the usual "sky" sign, it may be presumed to contain
some reference to that region. For now it can suffice
to refer to it merely as the "sky" event, without further speculation as to the nature of the event.
The name of the protagonist (C8–D8) will
be recognized by readers familiar with Heinrich
Berlin's article on the Palenque Triad (1963). It is
that of Berlin's "GI" (we might as well say "God I")
of the Triad. It comprises two glyphs, the principal
one of which is a portrait glyph (D8). This is present
in all citations of the name in the Palenque inscriptions, of which there are at least sixteen. The first
part of the name (C8) — a composite glyph with
three components, including a numerical prefix 1
— must be either an optional part or else a gloss
prescribing the reading of the portrait glyph. It is
present in only four of the citations (TC:C8–D8,
D16–D16; Pal. Tabl.: E10–F10, H15–16). Without
venturing yet a reading of the name, we can refer
to it here — for short and following Berlin — as
"GI."
Assuming now that this clause is to be joined
with the preceding predicate, we have for the
sequence D1–D8 what may be expressed as fol6
Fig. 2. Tablet of the Foliated Cross. Drawing by Linda Schele.
7
Fig. 3. Tablet of the Sun. Drawing by Linda Schele.
8
lows (including in the paraphrase this time only
the information recorded, omitting the insertion of
predictable details):
8.5.0 after his birth was . . ?. . on 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu,
at the completion of thirteen baktuns, and 1.9.2 after the
epoch was his "sky event," GI.
In this paraphrase the event expressions have
been treated as nouns, their pronominal subjects
as possessive pronouns, predication as the verb of
occurrence or existence, and the explicit subject
of the two personal event expressions as the grammatical antecedent of the possessive pronounspostposed as in the grammatical order discussed
above. This is in accord with the patterns of Maya
grammar. Now we know the name of the one who
was born at 8.5.0 before the epoch day, on 1 Ahau 8
Muan 12.19.11.13.0.
The glyph at C3 has still to be considered. (It is
represented in the above paraphrase only by ellipses
with a question mark.) Its prefix, marking it as
representing the posterior of a pair of dates and/or
events, was cited earlier as a reason for requiring
that 8.5.0 lead to 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu (as Thomas in
1904 had it) rather than to 13 Ik end-of-Mol (as
Thomas 1900, and Thompson, had it). Its central
components — a deerhoof over an open hand (seen
from the back) — correspond to the kernel of the
event expression. Here it appears with affixes
appropriate to its position as the second in a pair
of event expressions that are linked by a preceding
Distance Number, but where it is not preceded by
a date with a posterior date indicator. Elsewhere at
Palenque (Pal. Tabl.: E8; T-XVIII door jambs: B17)
it appears with inflectional affixes appropriate to
several other syntactic positions, including the one it
occupies in those instances, viz., preceded by a date
which in turn is preceded by a posterior date indicator. In those instances the designated event was one
of those that take place in the early life of a prince
before his accession to rule (in these particular cases
at ages seven and fourteen, respectively, long before
their accessions). There is no very good reason for
interpreting the "deerhoof-over-hand" compound
any differently in the present case; so it may be
supposed that a corresponding event was narrated
for the mythological protagonist of this passage. If
this is correct, it would seem to be an important and
momentous kind of event, for this marks the installation of the new chronological era.
IV.
About the "Sky" Event (C9–C13)
In the text segments just reviewed (D1–C5 and
D5–C8), there have been found references to three
events in the career of the second mythological
personage to be named in this inscription: his birth,
his "deerhoof" event, and his "sky" event. At least
the first two of these have analogues in the lives
of human rulers. The passage continues with the
notation of the day 13 Ik end-of-Mol (C9–D9). Our
segmentation of the text — not having included this
in the last segment discussed and paraphrased above
— may have seemed arbitrary, for 13 Ik end-of-Mol
is the Calendar Round position of (13.0)1.9.2, the
day of the "sky" event of this second-named mythical personage. Under some circumstances it might
well have been included (there is precedent for
passages with just that order of constituent parts);
but in this case the Calendar Round specification
clearly belongs with what follows. We can recognize here, in a glyphic text, an example of a rhetorical pattern that is both widespread and ancient — in
the Americas as in the Old World — and that is
very much in evidence still in spoken Maya today,
especially in ritual discourse, traditional narrative,
oratory, prayers, and other formal uses of language.
It is the pattern of the parallel couplet, consisting
of a pair of words, phrases, or strophes having the
same reference but contributing different aspects of
the meaning, where the second repeats the essential
content of the first while expressing it in a different or partially different manner. Examples from
modern Maya communities have frequently been
reported by linguistic fieldworkers, and examples
from the Popol Vuh and from some of the books
of Chilam Balam are well known. Though it may
not have been anticipated in as unwieldy a medium
as hieroglyphic writing, its presence yet ought not
surprise us. So far it is known (to the writer) from
two examples in the present text (the other will be
encountered shortly), from several in other texts at
Palenque, and from a few at Copán. Some of these
show a further elaboration of the couplet form, with
a lesser couplet incorporated into the second strophe
of the principal couplet. The instance at hand is such
a one, in this case having the following form:
Temporal phrase — Event — Protagonist
Temporal phrase — Event — Place — Protagonist
— Event — Place
Two different expressions locate the event in
9
time; three make reference to the event but describe
it in somewhat different ways or name different
aspects of the event; there are two different designations of its location (directional) and two variations
on the name of the protagonist.
The two expressions of location in time have
been noted. One expresses the date in the Long
Count and introduces the first of the predicates; the
other gives it in the Calendar Round and introduces
the second.
The first two expressions of the event (D7 and
C10–D10) appear to be variations on a common
theme, both containing the "sky" glyph. The second
has a numerical prefix 6, but it is not known whether
this should be understood literally for its numerical
value or whether it is there as a rebus with phonetic
transfer. Elsewhere this "6 sky" glyph becomes one
of the appellatives of the deity involved in the event.
The third of the event expressions (C12–D12) is a
wholly different expression, and we have only circumstantial evidence for assuming that it is coreferent with the others (see below).
The second and third of the event expressions
are qualified by direction glyphs (C11 and C13),
both of which have reference to the north. One of
them (C11) is equivalent to the "north" glyph of the
codices, having the inscriptional variant of the same
prefix (a rebus for xam or xama) together with the
head which in the inscriptions takes the place of the
one in the codices that serves as the main sign of the
glyph for "north," xaman. Another example attesting to the identification of this glyph is in the direction slot of the 819-day passage in the inscription of
the Temple of the Sun, where the required direction
is north. The other direction glyph here (C13) — a
totally different expression — is one that has been
posited as a "north" glyph by Thompson (1950:
251 and fig. 41.35) on the basis of its occurrence
on Copán Stela A in a context in which it contrasts
with recognized glyphs of the other three directions,
complementing them and completing the set of four.
It is composed of two signs, both with "serpent"
associations. The prefix is the reduced conventional
variant of Chicchan, and the main sign is one of the
Fig. 4. Temple of the Cross, secondary texts. Drawing by
Linda Schele.
"serpent segments." Thompson suggested that the
ultimate reference of the glyph might be to some
northern constellation, quite likely Draco.
The two expressions of the name of the protagonist (C8–D8 and D11) both incorporate the familiar
portrait glyph of "GI" of the Triad, but with different modifiers. The modifiers clearly are optional,
for the majority of the citations of this name in the
Palenque inscriptions consist of the portrait alone.
The third of the event expressions (C12–D12) is
postulated to be such for the following reasons: (1)
it occupies a position in the structure of a recognized
10
rhetorical form, one that has precedent elsewhere in
Maya inscriptions, that calls for it to be such; (2) like
the second of the event expressions, this one also
precedes a direction glyph with the same reference;
(3) its constituent parts appear as event expressions,
or as components in event expressions, in other
inscriptions. It is not supposed that this third event
expression is exactly synonymous with the other
two, but only that it is co-referent. Its meaning can
hardly be guessed at now but, as a first step toward
its delimitation, the context of some other occurrences of its parts can be pointed out. It consists of
two glyphs, the so-called "god C under sky-elbow"
glyph (C12) and an inscribed and somewhat deviant form of the "house" (or "temple") glyph. In the
Palace Tablet there is a two-glyph phrase in which
the radical parts of the first glyph are a knot over a
hand (these combining with apparently inflectional
affixes) and in which that of the second glyph is
the "god C under sky-elbow" compound (also with
affixation). This appears in two different passages,
each with couplet arrangements that delimit its
reference if not its meaning. In the first (Pal. Tabl.:
K10–L10) it recapitulates the import of one of the
well-established "accession" expressions (at K7; see
Mathews and Schele 1974) and is recapitulated by
yet another (at K12–L12). In the second (Pal. Tabl.:
O10–P10) it recapitulates a third of the recognized
"accession" expressions (O1–P4). In still another
passage it occurs (Q14–R14) in a context where
its reference has to be to an accession but where
it appears with a different head (an equivalent?)
under the "sky-elbow"; and here it is followed by
another pair of glyphs that includes the "house"
glyph. In the Temple XVIII jambs (D4) the "god C
under sky-elbow" glyph occurs in connection with
a preaccession event at age sixteen in the life of the
prince Chàhcal Ah Nabei, who is the subject of that
inscription; but the immediately preceding glyphs
are destroyed, so the remainder of the phrase is not
known. In the Tablet of the 96 Glyphs (at B8) the
"house" glyph occurs in a context that implies some
action by Pacal in relation to his second-in-line heir
Kan-Xul when the latter was ten years of age. Thus,
from the fragments of circumstantial evidence that
are available, it can only be concluded so far that the
glyphs in the third event expression in the passage
under consideration in the inscription of the Temple
of the Cross (C12–D12) may be in some way
appropriate in certain expressions that relate either
to occupancy, or to designation or preparation for
future occupancy, of royal office. If this is so, and
if it does indeed function as a gloss or recapitulator
of the two previous parallel event expressions, then
this third event in the early career of the mythical
male personage — the "sky" event — is also one
that, although mythico-cosmological in reference, is
or was interpreted as in some respect analogous to
an important event in the life of a king.
The paraphrase of these structurally linked text
segments can now be completed, including this time
its final installment:
8.5.0 after his birth was his "deerhoof" event on 4
Ahau 8 Cumhu at the completion of thirteen baktuns,
and 1.9.2 after the epoch event was his "sky" event, "GI";
on 9 Ik end-of-Mol was his "sky" event in the north,
"GI," his "sky-elbow" event in the house of the northern
region.
Needless to say, the paraphrase leaves much to
be desired. It is no more than the merest beginning.
The chronology has been straightened out; the structure of the passage has been discerned and exposed;
and its content has to some slight degree been
adumbrated. The meaning of this bit of mythology,
however, is far from clear. But, with what we have,
we can pass to the problem of the next passage.
V.
Who Is It This Time? (D13–F4)
Another Distance Number begins the next passage, which is of the same general form as noted
previously: Distance Number — Prior Event —
Posterior Event. Its first part is transparent, and a
tentative paraphrase may begin somewhat as follows:
It was 0 days and 12 uinals (D13) and 3 tuns (C14)
and 18 katuns (D14) and 1 baktun (C15) from the "sky"
event (D15) of "GI" (C16–D16) to the birth (C17) of . . ?
. . (D17) on 9 Ik 15 Ceh (E1–F1).
There is in this (at D15) yet another variation on
the theme of the "sky" event, employing the same
main sign as in the first two occurrences (D7 and
D10) but with a different set of preposed and affixed
modifiers. The assumption that the glyph refers to
the same event is verified by the arithmetic. The
stated interval, when applied to the date of the "sky"
event as known from the preceding passage, does
indeed lead to a day 9 Ik 15 Ceh as here recorded:
1. 9. 2
13 Ik end-of-Mol (D5–C6a,
11
1.18. 3. 12. 0
1.18. 5. 3. 2
C9–D9)
Distance Number (D13–C15)
9 Ik 15 Ceh (E1–F1).
The new event is yet another mythological
"birth" (C17), and the glyph referring to the one
born follows immediately (D17). Given just what is
in this inscription, it could well be supposed that this
glyph was the name of the personage whose birth is
recorded here; but comparison with the inscriptions
of the Temples of the Sun and the Foliated Cross
shows that this is not the name of a unique individual but is, rather, a common appellative or a descriptive expression that applies also to two other characters, whose births are recorded in those inscriptions
at intervals of four and eighteen days respectively
after the birth recorded here. In those cases, a full
complement of names and individualizing appellations is given for each of the other two personages
in addition to this common appellative; but here,
in the inscription of the Temple of the Cross, there
is only the common appellative. One must wonder
why the personage whose birth is recorded here is
distinguished from the other two of this set of three
only by the absence of a specific name. The appropriate logical inference for the unmarked member
of a set is that it is in some way the member par
excellence. Is that the case here?
Before attempting to provide an answer to this
question, it is necessary to consider the remainder of
the passage, that is, up to the next Distance Number.
In the tentative paraphrase that was given above
for the first part, the Calendar Round day 9 Ik 15
Ceh (E1–F1) was included — as it can be, and as it
would have to be if the passage ended there, that is,
if the next Distance Number immediately followed
it. But the passage does not end there. Six more
glyphs (E2–F4) intervene before the next Distance
Number. This is a probable indicator of another parallel-couplet structure.
The consequences of such an assumption can be
stated and tested. If the passage does indeed exemplify the couplet pattern, then (1) its first clause ends
with the reference to the subject (D17), not with the
Calendar Round day as in the above paraphrase; (2)
the Calendar Round day 9 Ik 15 Ceh (E1–F1) constitutes the temporal phrase that begins the second
clause of the couplet; (3) the glyph which follows
this, at E2, has to be a second expression of the
event, that is, it has to be a glyphic synonym for
"birth"; and (4) one or more of the glyphs which
follow, beginning with F2, must make reference
again to the same personage as was the subject of
the "birth" expression in the first clause. Whether or
not a third expression of the event may be found in
these glyphs would depend on whether the second
strophe is bifurcated in its predicate (as was the case
in our first example) or whether it is of the simpler
form. Either is within the range of expectation.
A crucial test of the hypothesis obviously would
consist in the proof or disproof of consequence 3
above, that is, in a demonstration that the glyph at
E2 is or is not a synonym for the "birth" glyph, as at
C17. It will be shown that it is. The demonstration
requires drawing upon information that is contained
in the first pair of passages from each of the other
two Temples of the Cross group and in the alfardas
of all three temples. But, before proceeding to these,
the remaining glyphs (F2–F4) of the passage at
hand need to be reviewed.
The glyph at F2 is the same as that at D17, the
common appellative of the three in this generation.
It appears probable, then, that there is a second
reference here to the personage whose birth was
recorded at C17–D17. The glyph at E3 is a relationship glyph — one that expresses the relationship
between a given individual and one of his parents,
where the parent may be of either sex. A convenient
paraphrase for it, if not a translation, is "child of."
(This claim will not be defended here. It is one
of the subjects of a forthcoming paper by Linda
Schele, Peter Mathews, and the present writer.) The
glyph at F3 is the same as that at C1. It is the name
of the female personage born on the date of the
Initial Series of this inscription, the mythological
progenitrix. The glyph at F4 is the head that elsewhere serves as a title accompanying female names.
Its reading can be shown to have been Na', a word
that means "mother" in several Maya languages and
which is known from post-conquest vocabularies
to have been used also as a title for ladies of high
station. At B17, with a special superfix, this glyph
appeared as a preposed modifier or title with the
name of the lady. Here at F4 it follows as an appositional modifier. As such it is a substantive in its
own right and is in turn modified by the preceding
glyph. This modifier, at E4, has as its central element a sign, T188, which appears widely elsewhere
in expressions of accession to royal office (cf.
Proskouriakoff 1960). Current hypotheses associ12
ate with it a meaning pertaining to such office,
especially as the prerogative of a ruling line or lineage. These glyphs (F2–F4) therefore do apparently
constitute a second reference to the subject of the
"birth" glyph, this time adding the information that
the subject is the offspring of the lady of the initial
passage, the ancestral mother.
Evidence bearing on the value of the glyph at E2
may now be adduced. On the basis of its position,
and on the assumption that the passage at hand is of
the parallel-couplet form, it was hypothesized that
this should be another "birth" expression. Further
evidence in support of the hypothesis comes from
other inscriptions. The argument follows.
The date of the Initial Series of the Temple of
the Sun is 1.18.5.3.6 13 Cimi 19 Ceh. The event
ascribed to it is the birth of the mythical personage
or deity whom Berlin has identified as "GIII" of
the Palenque Triad. His birth is declared twice, in
two successive passages that constitute yet another
parallel couplet. The first of these has the Initial
Series date as its introducing temporal phrase (TS:
A3–B17, including lunar and other data), the ordinary "birth" glyph for its event expression (C1),
and a name-and-epithet phrase eleven glyphs in
length to designate the subject (D1–D6). The last
of these glyphs (D6) is the name by which "GIII"
is commonly known in other inscriptions, and it
is preceded by the head-variant of the Mahkina
title which either in this or in the simple affix form
regularly accompanies the name glyph. The second
statement is in the "Distance Number — Prior Event
— Posterior Event" form (TS: C6–D13), with the
first two of these parts constituting the temporal
phrase and the last part the main predication. Here
the "birth" glyph (C10) is in the inflected form for a
posterior event, and the designation of the subject is
a phrase (D10–D13) similar to the second designation of the still anonymous one of the Temple of the
Cross. That is, this time "GIII" also is referred to by
means of the common appellative together with the
genealogical phrase describing him as the offspring
of the ancestral lady of Palenque.
The date of the Initial Series of the Temple of
the Foliated Cross is 1.18.5.4.0 1 Ahau 13 Mac. The
event ascribed to it is a birth (B16), characterized
here as "the third" of a series (A16) and introducing
yet another mythological personage onto the scene.
He is here designated by a six-glyph phrase (A17–
Fig. 5. Temple of the Foliated Cross, alfardas. Drawing by
Linda Schele.
D2), of which the last glyph — a reclining infantile
figure with torch and mirror symbols — is the indispensable component that is present in all citations of
this name (sometimes abbreviated to just the torchmirror device, minus the body of the figure). The
second-last glyph of the phrase (C2) is a frequently
accompanying praenomen. There is a second reference to the event and its protagonist (C5–D6), but
it is not in a coordinate strophe of a couplet as it is
in the Temple of the Sun. Instead, it is in the priorevent statement contained in the next passage. That
passage, another in the couplet form, tells us that
"1.14.14.0 after the birth of 'GII' was the completion
of two baktuns (2.0.0.0.0)" and that "on 2 Ahau 3
Uayeb (also 2.0.0.0.0) was the 'hand-fish' event of
the ancestral mother." There is much of interest in
this passage, but what is relevant right now is the
manner of designating the two personages named
in it. The first of these is named (at D5–C6) by
the same pair of glyphs as terminated the previous
reference (C2–D2), though this time the last glyph
has the torch-mirror device replacing the entire head
of the reclining figure. But, in addition, his name
phrase here includes also the common appellative
(D6), which was used also in references to the other
two of this set of quasi triplets, in the other temples.
It will be seen further on in the passage that the
ancestral mother also has this incorporated into
her appellative phrase (at C11); but this one has an
added component, the prefix that is a characteristic
part of Emblem Glyphs. This puts it into a different
category. This glyph and the one that immediately
follows it (C11–D11) function here as an equivalent
13
of the Palenque Emblem Glyph with the heron head
(T793a, Thompson's "Upturned Snout, no. 3"), substituting for that form which occurs after the same
lady's name in the Temple of the Sun (TS: D13).
(For some other examples of the substitution of
the kernel components of the common appellative
[T74:565 or T502:565] for the Palenque Emblem
Glyph bird [T793a, with or without a T74 superfix],
see figures 20 and 21 in Linda Schele's paper in
Volume IV of this series.)
In summary, for the members of the second
mythological generation we have the following
identifying information:
Firstborn. Birth date 1.18.5.3.2 9 Ik 15 Ceh.
Designated by the common appellative, and by relationship to the mother, but without any individualizing proper name or epithet (TC: D13–F4).
Secondborn. Birth date 1.18.5.3.6 13 Cimi
19 Ceh. Designated by the common appellative,
by relationship to the mother, and by the name of
"GIII" of the Palenque Triad (TS: A3–D13).
Lastborn. Birth date 1.18.5.4.0 1 Ahau 13 Mac.
Designated by the common appellative, and by the
names of "GII" of the Triad, but relationship to the
mother is not specifically stated. Possibly it could
be understood as implied by the context (TFC:
A3–C15).
The firstborn so far remains anonymous. But
further information is found in the alfardas from the
three temples. These paired balustrade slabs have
(or had) inscriptions of twenty-four glyphs each,
twelve per slab in each pair. (See figs. 5–7; cf. Ruz
Lhuillier 1958: 86–87, 141–142.) Each text contains two passages: a brief one of five glyphs and a
longer one comprising the remainder. Only the first
passage in each case is immediately pertinent to the
questions here under consideration. The composition of these brief passages is as follows:
1. Each begins (in A1–B1) with one of the dates
enumerated above, given in the Calendar Round: 9
Ik 15 Ceh in the TC alfarda, 13 Cimi 19 Ceh in the
TS, and 1 Ahau 13 Mac in the TFC. That these are
the Long Count dates 1.18.5.3.2, 1.18.5.3.6, and
1.18.5.4.0 respectively, is guaranteed by the content
of the second passage in each case, together with
the two surviving Distance Numbers (TC and TFC)
that lead to a common posterior date, 5 Eb 5 Kayab
9.12.19.14.12.
2. Each of these dates is followed (at A2) by
a common event glyph. This latter is composed
of three parts: (1) the prefix T204, which is one
of the third-person-pronominal set, that is, one of
those that alternate seemingly freely with T1, u, in
prefixed position (in the TC alfarda this is mostly
obliterated but is assumed to have been the same or,
at least, to have been one of the same substitution
set); (2) a superfix T217, which is the "open hand"
viewed from the back; and (3) the main sign T526,
which is the Caban day-sign, also known with the
reading cab for either of a pair of homonyms: cab,
"earth" or "pueblo," and cab, "honey" or "bee."
3. This event glyph is followed in each case (at
B2–C1) by a pair of glyphs designating a protagonist, the subject of the event glyph. One glyph of
each of these pairs is T74:565.117.178b. This is the
"common appellative" to which repeated reference
has been made in the review above. The other glyph
is variable. In the TFC alfarda it is T1030g, the
reclining infantile "torch-mirror" figure, which is
the principal name glyph of GII of the Triad. The TS
alfarda is broken off at this point, but, by analogy
with that of the TFC, one supposes that the name
glyph of GIII of the Triad must have followed the
common appellative in this case. In the TC alfarda
the name is given by T1011, the portrait glyph of GI
of the Triad!
The implications are clear. (1) The hand-overCaban sign designates the event that took place on
1.18.5.4.0 1 Ahau 13 Mac, involving GII. This, as
we know from the main TFC inscription, was his
"birth." Therefore the hand-over-Caban sign is a
probable synonym for "birth," substitutable for the
usual upended-frog sign for "birth," T740. (2) The
hand-over-Caban sign designates also the event
that took place on 1.18.5.3.6 13 Cimi 19 Ceh. This
confirms the inference just drawn; for this also,
according to the main TS inscription, was a "birth,"
that of GIII. (3) The hand-over-Caban sign further
designates the event that took place on 1.18.5.3.2 9
Ik 15 Ceh. Again there is confirmation; for according to the main TC inscription this was a birth. But
there is also contradiction, for the alfarda attributes
the 1.18.5.3.2 birth to GI, while the main inscription
assigns the birth of GI to a date at minus 8.5.0, which
was 12.19.11.13.0 1 Ahau 8 Muan. Therefore, either
one or the other of the two inscriptions is in error,
or else there were two "GI's." Whenever possible, it
is preferable to choose the alternative that does not
14
require positing an error. The preferred hypothesis
at this point, then, is that there were two mythological personages who bore the name of "GI."
It was the glyph at E2 in the main inscription
of the Temple of the Cross that prompted this line
of argument, the immediate purpose of which was
to demonstrate that the glyph was another "birth"
glyph, synonymous with the so-called upended-frog
glyph and coreferent with the one at C17. The steps
taken in the argument so far have shown instead
that the hand-over-Caban sign is such a synonym.
Remaining to be shown is a basis for equivalence
between this latter and the glyph at E2.
The components of the glyph at E2 are the
following: (1) the prefix T11, which is another
member of the third-person-pronominal set; (2) the
open-hand sign, T217, the same as that in the handover-Caban sign; (3) Landa's ca sign, T25; and (4)
the Imix sign, T501. For this last, when employed
as a phonetic sign rather than as a logogram, a value
of ba, or of syllable-final b after a medial vowel
a, was first posited by Kelley (1962: 306–307; cf.
Proskouriakoff 1968: 250). It is now well attested
in that value. Also well attested is Landa's value
of ca for the immediately preceding superfix. The
two together (T25:501) then spell cab. As such, the
pair constitute a phonetically derived compound
logogram that is equivalent to the simple logogram
T526 in its reading cab and that is an eligible substitute for it. It is thus clear that the glyph at E2
in the main inscription of the Temple of the Cross
(T11.217:25:501) is equivalent to that at A2 in each
of the three alfarda inscriptions (T204.217:526),
inasmuch as T11 and T204 are both substitutable for
T1, and T25:501 is equivalent to T526 in its value
cab. It has been shown that the glyph at A2 in each
of the three alfarda inscriptions must be in some
way equivalent to the usual "birth" glyphs with
the upended-frog sign T740, probably representing a synonymous expression. This being so, the
glyph at E2 in the main inscription of the Temple
of the Cross is then similarly equivalent to the usual
"birth" glyphs. This is what was posited earlier, but
then only on the basis of a tentative hypothesis that
the passage D13–F4 was of the parallel-couplet
form and that the part E1–F4 was a recapitulation
and rephrasing of the part in D13–D17. The test
that was there proposed for the hypothesis has now
confirmed it.
Fig. 6. Temple of the Cross, alfardas. Drawing by Linda
Schele.
Words for "birth" and "to be born" in the Maya
languages are numerous and varied. A few of the
verb roots employed are Yacatec zih, Tzeltal tohk,
behk', Tzotzil wok', Jacaltec pitzk'a, and Cakchiquel
ala. These are but a sample. It is one of the most
unstable items in the comparative lexicon. Other
words for birth are derived from verbs meaning
to "be" or to "exist" ("come into being"), to "live"
("become alive," "begin life"), "burst," "sprout,"
"emerge," etc., or from the noun for "human being"
("become a person"). In some cases, basic words for
birth have come to be restricted to use in reference
to animals, while other expressions — euphemistic
or poetic in origin — have taken over in the human
domain. In Chol, for example, the ordinary expressions for human birth are ilan pañimil, k'el pañimil,
and huli ti pañimil. These are idioms whose literal
meanings are "to see (or visit or experience) the
world," "to see (or look at) the world," and "to arrive
here in the world," respectively. Also recorded — as
parallel expressions coupled with huli ti pañimil
— are k' el k' in, literally, "to see the light of day,"
and tvl lum, "to touch earth."
The noun cab — or its expected cognate, chab
or chvb — does not survive in Chol, either in the
sense of "the earth" or "the world" or in any of
the presumably related special senses that it has
in some of the Maya languages, such as "region,"
"territory," "dwelling place," "pueblo," "house," etc.
The word pañimil (or pañvmil, pañamil, pañumil),
which takes its place, is derived from a root whose
elementary senses include "front side," "top side,"
and "surface" ("exposed side"). Its use for "the
15
Fig. 7. Temple of the Sun, alfardas. Drawing by Linda
Schele.
world" is analogous to the Yucatec yok' ol cab for
"el mundo," literally, "its surface, the earth" (cf.
English "the face of the earth"). It is analogous also
to Chol panchan for "the sky," literally, "its surface,
or its expanse, the sky."
The noun cab does survive in Chontal, however.
Surprisingly it is in just that form (phonetic kab)
rather than in the expected form chab. This implicates it as a borrowing from Yucatec. As such, it is
assuredly an early one, very likely preconquest. It
occurs as cab for "pueblo" and in cabil for "country" and "territory" in the 1610 document of the
Chontal of Acalan in southern Campeche (Smailus
1975). La Farge recorded it as kab and kaap for two
dialects of the Chontal of Tabasco for "tierra." The
more general term for "the earth" or "the world" in
the Chontal of Tabasco is pancab, a compound that
incorporates the same root for "surface" as appears
in the Chol word. From this compound noun (with
an automatic vowel alternation) is derived the term
for "birth" or "to be born" which is used in reference
to humans: apvncvbí, literally, "to earth," that is, "to
appear on the earth" or "to come into the world."
There is thus ample evidence from the most
pertinent Maya linguistic area for idiomatic expressions for "birth" employing vocabulary items for
"earth." It should then not be difficult to accept as
"birth" expressions the glyphs at A2 in each of the
three alfarda inscriptions and at E2 in the main
inscription of the Temple of the Cross. These must
be graphic representations of some Maya idiomatic
expression similar to one or another of those that
are documented for Chol and Chontal. The glyphs
depict "the earth" or "the world" either by means
of the conventional logogram (the Caban sign) or
by means of the phonetically derived alternative
that can only represent the syllable cab. (The Chol
expressions may be replacements or loan translations for analogous idioms with cab.) It would
be tempting to take the hand sign that is over the
"earth" signs as iconically motivated, that is, literally "touching the earth" (cf. tvl pañimil above). But
it must be remembered that that hand sign, T217,
is a glyphic affix that can be rotated, appearing in
four different orientations. Here it is a super-fix and
could be fancied to "touch"; in various other occurrences it is a subfix (e.g., in A7, B11, C3, and F7 of
the same TC inscription), rotated 180 degrees, and
if iconically interpreted would suggest "holding or
receiving." But, if the value of this affix (like the
values of others) is invariant to rotation, its position
in any given case being a function only of the order
of the constituent parts in a Maya linguistic expression, then the hypothesis of iconicity here should
not be embraced too eagerly. Its value might equally
well be phonetic. But, if so, a satisfactory hypothesis still escapes us.
Aside from the identification of some new "birth"
glyphs, and the finding of another example of the
parallel-couplet text form, the principal conclusion
of this section has been that there are two "GI's."
There remains the question of why the junior "GI"
was not so named in the passages recording his
birth in the Temple of the Cross (D13–D17, E1–F4).
A tentative answer to that question is that, as the
namesake of his sire and as the member par excellence of the class designated by the common appellative, it was simply understood in this locus where
the sire's name is in the immediately preceding
context. In all other inscriptions, where that context
and the common appellative are absent, his name is
given. Of these two mythological personages bearing the same name, only the junior is a member of
the "Triad."
A still thornier question is the one concerning the
significance of the glyph that here has been called
the "common appellative" (T74:565:178b.118). No
further attempt on that riddle will be made now.
An approximate paraphrase of the coupled strophes of this passage can now be given, though still
with gaps at the loci of the common appellative and
with a bit of invention in rendering the reference to
16
the ancient lady:
language.
1.18.3.12.0 after the "sky" event of "GI" senior was
his birth, . . . [common appellative, in reference to "GI"
junior]; on 9 Ik 15 Ceh was his coming into the world, . .
. [common appellative with same reference], progeny of
the Ancient One, of the Mother of the Lineages.
As for the content of the inscription so far,
the cast of characters that is before us includes a
senior-generation pair who came into being before
the beginning of the current chronological era, the
male at 8.5.0 and the female at 6.14.0 before 4
Ahau 8 Cumhu, and a second-generation triad born
at 1.18.5.3.2, 1.18.5.3.6, and 1.18.5.4.0. The intergenerational time span has mythico-cosmological
dimensions. Evidence bearing on the identities of
these five beings, and on the reading of their name
glyphs, will be presented on other occasions.
IV.
Conclusion
This is not the end of the problems in the mythological portion of the inscription of the Temple
of the Cross. But it will suffice for the present.
Solutions to some once seemingly intractable problems have appeared when consideration was given
to certain basic facts of Maya syntax, poetic form,
and text structure. "Suppressed dates" are no longer
mysterious or suspect. They are merely what can
be inferred from other information that is recorded.
For example, if a ruler's age at accession is given,
together with the accession date, obviously one can
determine the date of his birth. Neither is subject
ellipsis any more a source of bewilderment. It follows naturally from grammar, knowledge of which
will assist in identifying the elusive subject. Nor
is the string of noncalendrical glyphs following an
already complete predication quite so opaque, when
it can be shown that it is a recapitulation in other
terms of the content of that predication.
This last feature offers opportunities to the decipherer not previously exploited, except in dealing
with a different kind of text. Munro Edmonson
has remarked on its utility in the decipherment
of the romanized text of the Popol Vuh, where,
because of the serious phonological inadequacies
and ambiguities of the spelling, "often a dozen or
more quite disparate meanings may legitimately be
proposed for a particular monosyllabic root." But,
"Knowledge that the author was writing in couplets
may diminish this near-hopeless ambiguity by half
or even more" (Edmonson 1971: xi–xii). The analogy in the hieroglyphic texts is obvious. If it can
be known where to expect synonymies, there is at
hand an opening wedge into some of the problems
of glyph interpretation.
Finally, it deserves to be noted that the solution
to the composite glyph at E2 (pronoun + hand-caImix) bears on a question that has long been a sore
point of disagreement in regard to the nature of the
Maya writing system, namely, whether a grapheme
in that system could ever be employed phonetically
to represent something less than a morpheme of the
Acknowledgments
The writer wishes to express gratitude to
the Dumbarton Oaks Center for Pre-Columbian
Research and to Yale University for their support of
the research that has led to this paper. He is indebted
also to Elizabeth Benson, Peter Mathews, and Linda
Schele for their contributions to the ideas developed here and to Ausencio Cruz Guzmán, Nicholas
Hopkins, Kathryn Josserand, and John Justeson for
assistance with Chol and Chontal linguistic data.
Bibliography
BERLIN, HEINRICH
1963 The Palenque Triad. Journal de la Société
des Américanistes 52:91–99. Paris.
1965 The Inscription of the Temple of the Cross
at Palenque. American Antiquity 30:330–
342.
EDMONSON, MUNRO S.
1971 The Book of Counsel: The Popol Vuh of
the Quiche Maya of Guatemala. Middle
American Research Institute Publication
35. New Orleans: Tulane University.
GOODMAN, J. T.
1897 The Archaic Maya Inscriptions. Appendix
to Archaeology, by A. P. Maudslay, vol.
6, pp. 1–141. London. Facsimile reprint,
Charlotte, NC., 1974.
KELLEY, DAVID H.
1962 Fonetismo en la escritura maya. Estudios de
Cultura Maya 2:277–317. Mexico City.
17
LOUNSBURY, FLOYD G.
1976 A Rationale for the Initial Date of the
Temple of the Cross at Palenque. In Second
Palenque Round Table, 1974, ed. Merle
Greene Robertson, pp. 211–224. P a l e n q u e
Round Table Series III. Pebble Beach,
Calif.: Robert Louis Stevenson School.
MATHEWS, PETER, and LINDA SCHELE
1974 Lords of Palenque — The Glyphic Evidence.
In First Palenque Round Table, 1973: Part
1, ed. Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 63–75.
Palenque Round Table Series I. Pebble
Beach, Calif.: Robert Louis Stevenson
School.
PROSKOURIAKOFF, TATIANA
1960 Historical Implications of a Pattern of Dates
at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. American
Antiquity 25, no. 4:454–475.
1963 Historical Data in the Inscriptions of
Yaxchilan, Part I: The Reign of Shield
Jaguar. Estudios de Cultura Maya 3:149–
167. Mexico City.
1964 Historical Data in the Inscriptions of
Yaxchilan, Part II: The Reigns of BirdJaguar and His Successors. Estudios de
Cultura Maya 4:177–201. Mexico City.
1968 The Jog and the Jaguar Signs in Maya
Writing. American Antiquity 33:246–251.
THOMPSON, J. E. S.
1936 The Dates of the Temple of the Cross,
Palenque. Maya Research 3:287–293.
1950 Maya
Hieroglyphic
Writing:
An
Introduction. Carnegie Institution of
Washington Publication 589. Washington,
D.C.: Carnegie Institution.
1952 The Introduction of the Puuc Style of
Dating at Yaxchilan. Carnegie Institution
of Washington Notes on Middle American
Archaeology and Ethnology 110.
1962 A Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
1972 A Commentary on the Dresden Codex.
Philadelphia: American Philosophical
Society.
RUZ LHUILLIER, ALBERTO
1958 Exploraciones arqueológicas en Palenque:
1953, 1954. Anales del Instituto Nacional
de Antropología e Historia 10:69–116,
117–184. Mexico City.
SMAILUS, ORTWIN
1975 El Maya-Chontal de Acalan. Centro de
Estudios Mayas Cuaderno 9. Mexico City.
THOMAS, CYRUS
1900 Mayan Calendar Systems. Bureau of
American Ethnology Annual Report 19:693–
819.
1904 Mayan Calendar Systems–II. Bureau of
American Ethnology Annual Report 22:197–
305.
18